- Pronouns
- I don't give a flying fuck.
I don't care what else you guys wanna say under anonymity, this is not okay. Ever.now Rach can be a [censored] at times
I don't care what else you guys wanna say under anonymity, this is not okay. Ever.now Rach can be a [censored] at times
Well, the thing is, I don't ever want to be seen as censoring the data, because that introduces an element of bias. Which comments do you leave? Which ones do you remove? Comments on the Ministers are useful to know where we're at in the eyes of the public, and I personally like it. The problems are limited to the people flinging mud from behind the anonymity of the poll.HEM said:I think this is one of the most negative polling comment sections that we've seen in quite a while. Honestly, Calvin and the rest of the polling industry _really_ needs to limit comments to just a few broadstrokes questions. Making a comment on a poll is just throwing a grenade over the wall; if you actually have concerns you should be voicing them in public (as some do, but definitely not all).
I think Aex's administration has been turbulent, but he's also had a lot of bad luck. When faced with things that are in his control, he's tended to make the right call after a delayed period (Pichto's termination being a good example). I also think he's being graded on an unfair negative curve, because many newer members really only know of a President Writinglegend. WL got the opportunity to serve as President five times now, and I think with that sort of experience it's difficult to match.
Assuming the back end of the term turns around, I think this term will be remembered as good, not great.
I mean you don't include the comment sections. Like, don't have them at all. Or maybe have one at the end.Kaboom said:Well, the thing is, I don't ever want to be seen as censoring the data, because that introduces an element of bias. Which comments do you leave? Which ones do you remove? Comments on the Ministers are useful to know where we're at in the eyes of the public, and I personally like it. The problems are limited to the people flinging mud from behind the anonymity of the poll.HEM said:I think this is one of the most negative polling comment sections that we've seen in quite a while. Honestly, Calvin and the rest of the polling industry _really_ needs to limit comments to just a few broadstrokes questions. Making a comment on a poll is just throwing a grenade over the wall; if you actually have concerns you should be voicing them in public (as some do, but definitely not all).
I think Aex's administration has been turbulent, but he's also had a lot of bad luck. When faced with things that are in his control, he's tended to make the right call after a delayed period (Pichto's termination being a good example). I also think he's being graded on an unfair negative curve, because many newer members really only know of a President Writinglegend. WL got the opportunity to serve as President five times now, and I think with that sort of experience it's difficult to match.
Assuming the back end of the term turns around, I think this term will be remembered as good, not great.
Probably one of the most annoying ministers I've seen in my time here. Useless pings, always focusing on recruitment instead of integration, completely obtuse and throws a fluster fit when there is criticism, poor management skills, way too egotistical, and now he's running for CA? LMAO. He's one of the shitiest leaders in Europeia at the moment. I don't understand why people think he is so great. Recruitment numbers aren't going to prove how good he is.
Conversely I know that there is criticism of some Ministers that did not happen because of fear of retribution. Being seen as a critic can diminish your standing and access. It rendered me unable to participate in a Radio piece that would go on the showreel for example. There absolutely is room for anonymous criticism. However it needs to be responsible and disciplined, throwing out propane and offensive language is bad for our culture and also threatens to silence all anonymous critique.GraVandius said:I think simply removing comments from polls would be the best option. We would all be better off if people would simply voice their opinions publicly. If you going to be such a little shit to say some of these things anonymously but not publically, rgw anonymous option should be removed.
I don't see many if more than two comments with vulgar language but I could be wrong because I'm on mobile. Explicit language I agree could be censored but the sentiment of calling someone a [s--- leader] is not something pulled out of thin air but is a repeated critique of the Minister's focus on numbers that are a waste of time over other matters. I agree that the language is not necessary though.JayDee said:For the record, I support the anonymity of the comments and comments in general, but a lot of these are unacceptable. That doesn't mean get rid of comments entirely, but there should be a way of controlling what comments are actually allowed. Not silencing, but removing ones that have vulgar language. The same language that would get someone removed from NS.
Too easy. Asking editors to exhibit prudent judgement is a bridge too far! We need 4 Discord channels and a ministry with a cool acronym to sort this out!Sopo said:When I used to do this, I usually only included comments that were interesting or notable for some reason.
Thank you, Calvin! Given what Rach just posted in her own paper, I think we should show some respect to people in general!Calvin Coolidge said:Sorry I was unable to respond to this discussion earlier. I'll be honest, the comment in question slipped past me, I was very tired when I was compiling everything, so my apologies. Had I noticed it, I would have removed the comment. It would still be accessible in the raw data, of course, if anyone wanted to dig deeper, because I don't want to tamper with that. In general, I like to include as many comments as I can because I feel they add context to the scores given. There's no point in removing this comment now, as it has garnered so much attention, but I'll be more mindful in the future.
I think that's a metric that's much easier to apply than simply filtering out the 'too negative' ones, and I think Mal also presents another workable idea.Sopo said:When I used to do this, I usually only included comments that were interesting or notable for some reason.